Coronavirus (2021) thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gabriel said:
Not entirely sure what your question means. You can always conjure individual examples to support your case, but we’re discussing a general situation now where there are finite resources and seemingly infinite numbers of people presenting. Medical staff will always strive to save as many people as possible in normal times, but these are not normal times so it’s futile to equate the two.

This report shows how difficult and distressing the choice already was, and that was before vaccines had been made available to all.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200428-coronavirus-how-doctors-choose-who-lives-and-dies
Click to expand...
Sorry not really looking for an argument but when you mentioned the impact on health workers my own experience of working in social care and seeing dying people refused medical attention either in place or hospital clouds my judgement.
 
Jesus2020 said:
Sorry, had a few last night. I think I meant, let's take for example Astrazeneca; if you we're previously hesitant to take this due to not being confident in the timescale of its release for the ability to determine long term complications or not. You were called an anti vaxxer.

However, it has since been proven to cause blood clots.
Click to expand...
Not sure what your argument was but just for information the Astrazeneca vaccine is believed to have caused less than 100 deaths from blood clots from 50 millions vaccinations in the UK. How many people die crossing the road, or falling down the stairs? I don't know what the comparative risk is but you're talking about a tiny risk, and anyone concerned about blood clots should take a Covid vaccine because one of the secondary consequences of covid illness is blood clots.
 
Marvin said:
Not sure what your argument was but just for information the Astrazeneca vaccine is believed to have caused less than 100 deaths from blood clots from 50 millions vaccinations in the UK. How many people die crossing the road, or falling down the stairs? I don't know what the comparative risk is but you're talking about a tiny risk, and anyone concerned about blood clots should take a Covid vaccine because one of the secondary consequences of covid illness is blood clots.
Click to expand...
If that's true then I've fallen victim to my own anti media bias and just gone from the headline. Didn't they say they weren't using this particular vaccine for this reason though and do you have any links to back this up? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity and not in the hope of winning an argument.
 
Jesus2020 said:
If that's true then I've fallen victim to my own anti media bias and just gone from the headline. Didn't they say they weren't using this particular vaccine for this reason though and do you have any links to back this up? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity and not in the hope of winning an argument.
Click to expand...

Vaccines (and all medicines) are approved on the basis that the benefit exceeds the risk, not that they are risk free.

All medicines continue to gather safety data after approval, a process known as pharmacovigilance.

The AZ vaccine remains far more beneficial than risky, however:

- for *most* people, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are safer still
- the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are also probably a bit more effective under most circumstances

So Pfizer and Moderna are preferred. That doesn't mean AZ isn't net beneficial, it is, and is still available for people who for various reasons have potential adverse reactions to the Pfizer/Moderna jabs.

If the Pfizer and Moderna jabs didn't exist, we'd absolutely still be using the AZ jab.
 
roubaixtuesday said:
Vaccines (and all medicines) are approved on the basis that the benefit exceeds the risk, not that they are risk free.

All medicines continue to gather safety data after approval, a process known as pharmacovigilance.

The AZ vaccine remains far more beneficial than risky, however:

- for *most* people, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are safer still
- the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are also probably a bit more effective under most circumstances

So Pfizer and Moderna are preferred. That doesn't mean AZ isn't net beneficial, it is, and is still available for people who for various reasons have potential adverse reactions to the Pfizer/Moderna jabs.

If the Pfizer and Moderna jabs didn't exist, we'd absolutely still be using the AZ jab.
Click to expand...
That's my issue. Benefits to who? Society, the elderly? So is war. It benefits someone. But you don't want to go to war and risk being killed for it.
 
Gabriel said:
Interesting piece in the Times this morning about the number of unvaccinated taking up hospital beds and the impact that has on medical staff who cannot treat others requiring immediate care.

Must be a huge challenge on remaining non-judgemental.
Click to expand...
Very much so.
 
Jesus2020 said:
That's my issue. Benefits to who? Society, the elderly? So is war. It benefits someone. But you don't want to go to war and risk being killed for it.
Click to expand...

Benefits the individual is the assessment.

Societal benefits are not considered in medicines approval.
 
The numbers in SA look terrible for infectiousness but so far they're looking brilliant for hospitalisation and death considering the infectiousness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.